[Mongrel] comparison... why mongrel?
mzukowski at urbacon.net
Tue Apr 10 15:32:33 EDT 2007
The simple answer -- but one that probably won't satisfy your sysadmins
-- is that Mongrel is just easier to work with.
It's a tool built specifically around Rails/Ruby, and as such it
includes a lot of niceties that make using it a generally more pleasant
In my experience this is especially true if a) you are doing a lot of
active development (because restarting the server and debugging is a lot
easier than with FastCGI), and/or b) you plan on scaling later on with
something like Mongrel cluster. Keep in mind that even though this might
be a production environment, in the early stages of development you will
probably find yourself having to debug things on the production
instance. Environment-specific bugs will almost always show up. This is
where FastCGI can be extremely annoying compared to Mongrel.
Matt M. wrote:
> I've recently deployed a rails app and our platform is Apache 2.2 + mongrel
> cluster. It seems to be working fine... although no real tests yet. I just
> recently found out that it is *quite* possible that the live server will
> be getting an update to apache 2.2, and the current version is 1.3. So...
> I've installed Apache 1.3 + FastCGI on the dev server and it's running fine
> In order to get any chance of having the admins upgrade Apache on the live
> server... they want to know what the advantages are over using FastCGI
> (which is a simple Apache mod install).
> What makes Mongrel different that FastCGI?
> What are the pros and cons of both?
> Thank you for any feedback... I'm off to rdo more research!
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
This e-mail message is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.
Le contenu du pr'esent courriel est privil'egi'e, confidentiel et soumis `a des droits d'auteur. Il est interdit de l'utiliser ou de le divulguer sans autorisation.
More information about the Mongrel-users